owners of the land who challenged the award of the
Collector and claimed reference under Section 18
of the Act. The said provision seeks to confer
the benefit of enhanced compensation even on those
owners who did not seek a reference under Section
18. It cannot be that those who secure a certain
benefit by reason of others getting such benefit
should retain that benefit, even though the others
on the basis of whose claim compensation was
enhanced are deprived of the enhanced compensation
to an extent. This would be rather inequitable
and unfair. Moreover, even if it be that the
compensation payable to claimants who have applied
under Section 28-A of the Act, is the enhanced
compensation decreed by the Reference Court, we
must understand the decree to mean the decree of
the Reference Court as modified in appeal by the
higher courts. Otherwise, an incongruous position
may emerge that a person who did not challenge the
award of the Collector and did not claim a
reference under Section 18 of the Act would get a
higher compensation than one who challenged the
award of the Collector and claimed a reference,
but in whose case a higher compensation determined
by the Reference Court was subsequently reduced by
the superior court. There can be no dispute that
those claiming higher compensation and claiming
reference under Section 18 of the Act are bound by
the decree as modified by the superior court in
appeal. The principle of restitution must apply
